Talk:Li He

Range of dates
Is a range required when accompanied by "circa"? Instead of (c. 790–791 – c. 816–817), I'd use either (790–791 – 816–817) or (c. 791 – c. 817). A small suggestion, not a big deal, but that's the only edit I'd make to the parenthetical information in the first sentence. :-) Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't say with certainty in this case, but I often run into the case with Japanese years that we're given a specific year on the Japanese calendar that doesn't sync up with the Western calendar. The year may begin in 790 and end in 791, but without a more specific date we can't say which.  In such cases c. 790–791 is better than c. 790 or c. 791.   Something like (790–791 – 816–817) makes for confusing reading. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Both ranges are approximations (we don't have exact dates one way or the other), and if you look at footnotes [c], [e] and [f] there is this slight variation between the sources. The sentence in the body immediately following [c] is also ... well, honestly, I have half a mind to add it to footnote [c] and remove it from the body, and attribute it to Frodsham, but unfortunately I have not read Frodsham so for all I know he directly attributes it to someone else. Anyway, if he was born in the Year of the Horse, that would put his birth in early 790 to early 791. This slight variation of one year, when no month is given, is probably just a result of modern sources using the Gregorian calendar which was not in use in China at the time (or for about 1,000 years after), but I'm a bit pedantic about this stuff and have not actually found a source that directly states as much as of yet. I actually wouldn't mind, though, just removing the c.s from the lead for readability purposes, though at present CT's last point is a valid one. Speaking of which...
 * What would you think of (790/791 – 816/817)?
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * MOS:DATE says that the slash is used for continuguous dates (a fiscal year, or an event that happened overnight), so I'd say no. You might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Examples of poems moved from article space as incomplete
These should probably be completed here (preferably via collaboration with someone with more knowledge of Classical Chinese than me) before being re-added to the article.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Li He. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170204170651/http://www.ly.gov.cn/tzly/zsxm/ly/349533.shtml to http://www.ly.gov.cn/tzly/zsxm/ly/349533.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202063620/http://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2261/6578/1/cc008001.pdf to http://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2261/6578/1/cc008001.pdf
 * Added tag to http://ir.lib.u-ryukyu.ac.jp:8080/bitstream/123456789/29915/8/jinken22text.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"scribbling it down and completing the poems when he arrived home"
I don't consider it "dismissive", and it most certainly is "sourced" (Ctrl+F the "Poetry" section for "when a line of poetry came to him he would jot it down"). If "scribble" is a problem for some editors, then we can just use the same word in the lead. "writing" is extremely bland and non-descriptive, and definitely inferior to BOTH "scribbling" and "jotting".

On a related note, is "scribble" dismissive because it sounds kinda like "drivel"? I am really curious why you thought that. I personally would prefer to use slightly different but essentially synonymous wording, so if you don't have a reason for thinking the previous wording was dismissive, I'd rather change it back.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled by the above comment. Wikipedia is supposed to be factual - the fact that we know is that Li wrote down his poetic ideas. "Write" describes this factually. Another word might be more colourful, but at the same time more fanciful. "Scribble" is not a synonym of "write". The definition of "scribble" is "To write or draw carelessly and in a hurry". Do we have any evidence that Li wrote carelessly and in a hurry? Without evidence it's clearly derogatory. "Jot" is rather a colloquial word; its definition is similar but not so strongly negative as "scribble" - Wiktionary merely says "To write quickly". Do we have evidence he wrote quickly?Quelcrime (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get into a debate over whether Wikipedia is allowed record "facts" about a relatively obscure literary figure from 9th-century China. I used high-quality secondary and tertiary, mostly-scholarly, sources to write this article; we don't take a source that says he jotted or scribbled down notes while he was out and then constructed the poem that evening and neuter them to say he "wrote" lines of poetry. By saying "scribble" and "write" are not synonyms, you are admitting you altered the article to say something not supported by the source. Furthermore, the lead of the article is intended to summarize the body -- you should not edit the lead without also examining the body, but your edit summary claiming that there was "no source" indicates that that is exactly what you did. Have you read the source cited for the text? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 16:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)